Hot answers tagged

12

The discussion is in the Talmud Sanhedrin 22a. The background is the disagreement among the Rabbis if the Torah was originally in Ivri or Ashuri. The Talmud says that according to the view that it was in Ivri, Ashuri script was first seen when the Angel wrote it on the wall, thus the Jews were not familiar with it - this is why they couldn't read it. ...


10

No, it doesn't change the meaning. The letter bes that starts that word appears with a dot in it usually, but without one after a word (in the same phrase) that ends in an open syllable. (Usually.) The pronunciation changes between these two forms, but not the meaning. It's not unique to this word, either, but true of all words that start with a bes, gimel, ...


8

Ibn Ezra is of the opinion that it was the type of food they were eating that positively affected their appearance. He goes into detail inferring what exactly the food was, which would have the effect of filling one up (and reddening one's face?), but he concludes that any food one is eating out of desire/preference will be more likely to have these effects ...


6

I suggest you read the end of this article by R' Yisroel Blumenthal. The content is intended to be anti-missionary, but nonetheless gives the interpretation of Jewish commentators. (Note that rarely is there actual consensus among Jewish commentators to the Bible, especially with interpretations of vague visions such as this one, but in this case the one ...


5

There is a tradition that these three people had asked Ezekiel whether they would be saved, and he responded in the negative. The story is referred to in Zohar Toldos 142a but discussed at length in Midrash Rabba Shir Hashirim (sometimes called Midrash Chazis) 7:13. There, a long discussion is recorded between these three would-be martyrs and the prophet ...


4

From the plain reading of the text (Daniel 3:17-18), we see that they were unsure whether Hashem would save them. In particular, they say (3:18) והן לא (and if [Hashem does] not [save us]). In Shir HaShirim Rabbah (on 7:8, על דעת ר׳ שמעון), we see a midrash that relates how Chananiah, Mishael, and Azariah went to Ezekiel to ask whether Hashem would be ...


4

I was able to find this PDF which claims that historical evidence gives tangential evidence to the story in Daniel. http://www.biblehistory.net/Meshach_Shadrach_Abed-Nego.pdf He mentions that the names of these three people are found on a 5 sided clay prism from Babylonia, but so far I've only found Christian sites that make reference to this pillar. It ...


3

Daniel is in Kesuvim because it is not prophecy. There is a machlokes as to whether Daniel was or was not a prophet. However, we see that Baruch ben Neriyah (Yirmiyahu's student) never became a prophet because he went into exile before he became one (Yirmiyaho 45:3). We also see that Yechezkel (chapter 24) was given when he was already in Bavel. The point ...


3

As @DoubleAA says, we only read haftarot from the Prophets, not the Writings. There isn't one clear reason for this. For example, the Baer Heytev says that the reason is that you will not find a suitable matter there that fits the week's parsha, while others give other reasons. Here is an article in Hebrew about haftarot in general, which discusses this ...


3

The following is a literal translation with no care for phrases, or implied context. However grammatical tense has mostly been removed because I'm not sure which grammar system is used in Daniel. If there is any word I mistranslated, please correct me. בִּתְחִלַּת תַּחֲנוּנֶיךָ יָצָא דָבָר, וַאֲנִי בָּאתִי לְהַגִּיד--כִּי חֲמוּדוֹת, אָתָּה; וּבִין, ...


3

translation here http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16492 and scholarly links translations here: http://www.bible-researcher.com/links02.html


2

Gesenius's dictionary has this to say: אדין - afterwards, then באדין - at the same time, ie. immediately. Thus, there seems to be a question of immediacy in the choice of whether to have the ב prefix or not. This meaning seems to be hinted at in Jastrow as well, but not as explicitly as in Gesenius.


2

The "one like a man" is no one in particular: this is a dream. But whom does the dream allude to by that character? The messiah, according to the commentaries on that verse (Rashi, ibn Ezra, M'tzudas David) and as alluded to in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 98:1).


2

There are various explanations among the commentators; here's the M'tzudos'. I've put in square brackets the parts that don't translate the verse. And after the sixty-two [complete] seven-year periods [from the start of the construction of the second Temple], the anointed [Agrippa] will be cut down and gone, and the nation [Rome] of the ruler ([Titus] ...


2

To summarize from Yishai's answer, the Talmud says there was something funny about the way it was written; "in columns" is one possible interpretation. Assuming Manasseh ben Israel gave Rembrandt a sketch of what the letters should look like, I'd find it far more likely that Rembrandt was faithful to the sketch he was given (i.e. it was in columns) than that ...


2

The answer is that when Jews stopped speaking Greek, and therefore stopped relying on the Septuagint, these books/chapters fell away and were retroactively deemed heretical/not a part of Judaism. A similar situation occurred with other books such as Sefer Hanoch (The Book of Enoch) and the book of Jubilees. Studied in antiquity, they fell out of common ...


1

This is the traditional teaching from the time of the Rishonim of how the final redemption will unfold. It appears in many different places such as Midrash Talpiot starting at the 7th sign of the redemption. http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20804&st=&pgnum=57 Machzor Vitry which was by the grandson of Rashi. ...


1

Perhaps the statement in the first passuk of Daniel in which says: "בא נבוכדנאצר מלך בבל ירושלם ויצר עליה the expression ויצר עליה should be translated as "and showed hostility towards it" (because צור is a byform of צרר "treat with hostility"). If we assume that this means the passuk does not necessarily says that a formal military siege against ...


1

Your primary complaint is over a discrepancy of only eight years, which is not a huge amount. This discrepancy could be explained by different methods of counting regnal years and does not render the Book of Daniel non-historical. In his Guide to the Bible, Isaac Asimov mentions more discrepancies and points out that these discrepancies tend to be in ...


1

In the Babylonian Talmud, the rabbis were attempting to resolve the supposed contradiction between Isa. 6:2 ("I saw G-d") and Exo. 33:20 ("no man can see Me and live"). In tractate Yevamot 49b, it is written, "I saw G-d" is [understood] in accordance with what was taught: All the prophets looked into a mirror that is not clear, but Moshe looked into a ...


1

Maimonides (a foremost codifier of Jewish Law) in the first chapter of his Laws of the Foundations of the Torah explains the concept of seeing a vision of G-d: Behold, it is explicitly stated in the Torah and [the works of] the prophets that the Holy One, blessed be He, is not [confined to] a body or physical form . . If so, what is the meaning of ...


1

In HeiKhalot Rabbati, R. Ishmael says that the 70 weeks refers to 700 years. [137] Said Rabbi Ishmael: And even as Daniel explained I found written [Daniel 9.24] “Seventy weeks are decreed upon Thy people and upon Thy holy city to finish the transgression and to make an end of sins and to make reconciliation for iniquity and to bring in ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible